Skip to main content Skip to section navigation

A close look at the circumstances surrounding known instances of bestiality helps to shine a light on a topic that has been largely hidden in the shadows, and raises important issues for consideration by all those involved in the criminal justice system and risk management.

— Excerpt from “Bestiality” as reflected in Canadian case law

“Bestiality” As Reflected in Canadian Case Law

In 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a decision clarifying that the term “bestiality,” in the context of section 160 of the Criminal Code, captures only “penetrative” sexual acts involving a human and an animal.1 Recognizing that the bestiality offence plays an important role in prohibiting sexual acts that involve animals and children, the Canadian Centre set out to learn more about the nature of bestiality offending in Canada by looking at past legal decisions and information from Cybertip.ca.

The resulting paper, “Bestiality” as reflected in Canadian case law, is helping to shine light on a topic that has been largely hidden in the shadows. The report contains information about 38 reported Canadian cases involving an act (or alleged act) of bestiality, 47 cases involving visual content depicting bestiality, and 167 images or videos reported to Cybertip.ca and assessed as involving bestiality. Many of the cases reviewed involved horrifying situations of sustained offending against both human and animal victims. While the goal was not to bring together some of the worst cases of extended sexual abuse in Canada, that has been the unintended outcome.

The frequency with which the abuse of animal and human victims, particularly children, overlapped within the cases reviewed suggests there is a need to examine the adequacy of not only existing laws, but also the systems in place to manage risk and protect animals and people who are vulnerable to being victimized.

It was immediately apparent from reviewing the cases that many individuals who were willing to victimize an animal, were also willing to victimize a child. In fact, for 82% (31 out of 38) of the cases that involved bestiality activity, the sexual abuse of a child (or children) occurred as frequently as, if not more frequently than, the coerced sexual activity involving an animal.

— Excerpt from “Bestiality” as reflected in Canadian case law

Learn More About Our Observations

Read the full paper on CanLII.org .

Recommendations for Action

As of January 2019, Bill C-84 is proceeding through Parliament. The Bill, if passed, will broaden the definition of bestiality to capture all sexual activity between an animal and a human. The Canadian Centre has the following additional recommendations for action:

  • Expressly make visual content depicting bestiality illegal.
  • Enhance data collection to accurately capture all instances where an animal is abused for a sexual purpose.
  • Promote cross-reporting between animal and child protection agencies.
  • Consider adding questions about animal sexual abuse to common risk assessment tools used in forensic and therapeutic settings.
  • Adjust the Criminal Code to enable a court to prohibit an individual convicted of a bestiality offence from having access to an animal.

  1. 1 R v DLW, 2016 SCC 22.

Support our work. Donate today.

Be a part of something big. As a registered charitable organization, we rely on donations to help us offer our programs and services to the public. You can support us in helping families and protecting children.

Donate Now